I woke up on Thursday to find that the UN Security Council had instituted UN Security Council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya, banning all flights in the airspace of Libya ( and also denying permission to any aircraft registered or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or companies to take off from, land in or overfly their territory unless the particular flight has been approved in), instituting travel bans on the Libyan leadership and hardening the asset freeze that had already been imposed by Europe and the US.
I woke up on Thursday to find that the UN Security Council had instituted UN Security Council resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya, banning all flights in the airspace of Libya ( and also denying permission to any aircraft registered or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or companies to take off from, land in or overfly their territory unless the particular flight has been approved in), instituting travel bans on the Libyan leadership and hardening the asset freeze that had already been imposed by Europe and the US.
Well, to say that I’m shocked and horrified by the resolution, is an understatement.
Under the guise of protecting ‘civilians’ in a war zone, the Security Council has invoked ‘Chapter 7’, making resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya militarily enforceable.
The cheerleaders of this resolution are certainly enjoying themselves; French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, who had flown into New York, told reporters that the resolution "must be applied quickly” because of "the urgency on the ground” while Dr. Ed Luck, a Special Adviser on the Protection of Civilians, said "the principle of human protection and responsibility to protect are so strong that even governments traditionally worried about sovereignty did not want to stand in the way of forceful council action."
One shouldn’t look at the resolution without looking at the reasons why it wasn’t carried unanimously. The Council voted 10 in favour with five abstentions. China and Russia were expected to abstain, but what about Germany?
Germany is a NATO and EU member, it has troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan and it isn’t intimately involved with Libyan business, unlike, say, Italy. Its reasons for abstaining are eye-opening. German Foreign, Minister Guido Westerwelle, warned of a "slippery slope” of another war in a Muslim country with unintended consequences. What are these ‘unintended consequences’ he’s so scared of?
Let us remind ourselves of the situation on the ground. A section of the Libyan people decided that they wanted to see the back of Col. Gaddafi (and there still isn’t any evidence just what percentage of the entire country is actually supportive of that wish).
So, from Benghazi, close to the Egyptian border, they rose up, grabbed arms and started marching towards the capital, Tripoli.
The old flag of King Idris, deposed by Gaddafi in 1969, was flown over every town the rebels took over, and the western media was salivating, counting the days until the overthrow of the man some blame for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.
They didn’t count on two things: that not everyone supported the rebellion and that the Libyan army would actually have the temerity to engage the rebels with as much force as they could muster.
Against the rag-tag rebels, the Libyan army started making progress, all over the country, to cries of potential ‘genocide’ of the Benghazi populace if Gaddafi’s men got there.
The ‘big’ countries had already thrown their hats in the ring, on the rebels’ side. France declared that the rebel leadership was the ‘legitimate government’ and the UK started rattling its sabres.
If Libyan troops attacked civilians, as Chinese troops did in Tiananmen Square, I would have wholeheartedly supported this resolution.
However, these people are armed, have a military strategy and are engaged in acts unbecoming of civilians. An independent state has the right and the obligation to ensure security within its borders.
What’s the difference between these rebels and the ‘enemy combatants’ that the US army fights against in Iraq and Afghanistan? Nothing.
What we are seeing is nothing less than a putsch against Gaddafi, authored by the international community. His is a legitimate government which should enjoy the fruits of sovereignty. This right has been sacrificed on the altar of energy (oil and gas) and good relations with the rest of the Arab world. The West is playing to the Arab street, and as a result, the rights of the less powerful states are being trampled on. I have a question to ask; "If they can do that to him, what about us”?